British Nationality: Indian Citizenship Law

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Triesman on 8 November (WA 67), at which of the meetings identified in the answer Regulations 3 to 5 and Schedule I to the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/2175) were explained to the Indian authorities.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Paragraph 5(1) sets out the grounds on which matters may be referred to the court and makes it clear that it covers the whole of Paragraph 4. Paragraph 4(4) limits the extent under this schedule to which compensation for lost contracts can be offered through an action taken through the courts.
	To further explain, under Paragraph 1 of the schedule to the regulations, certain activities conducted for the services of the Crown do not infringe the rights in a community design (registered or unregistered). Normally, the government department concerned has to settle the terms of use with the holder of the community design (Paragraph 2 of that schedule). The government department may also have to compensate the holder (or an exclusive licensee) for loss he suffered as a result of not being awarded a contract (Paragraph 4). Paragraph 4(4) sets out that no compensation is payable through these provisions for any contract lost where the use is not for services of the Crown (in other words which falls outside paragraph 1). This provision thus attempts to avoid any doubt that non-Crown usage cannot be compensated for as crown use, and must be the subject of a contract if it is not to infringe.
	A similar approach has been adopted in the Registered Designs Act 1949 (see first schedule, Paragraph 2A(4)); and, in relation to design right, in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (see Section 243(4)).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Although the Home Office is responsible for scrutinising proposals for new offences, no comprehensive records are kept centrally of all new criminal offences created or abolished across the Home Office or government more generally. Criminal offences may be created for different reasons and do not necessarily extend the scope of the criminal law. For example the Sexual Offences Act 2003 created and repealed a large number of offences without significantly changing the overall coverage of the law. The latest information available shows that between one May 1997 and April 2005 the Home Office created 404 new offences. More detailed information is not held and could be identified and listed only at disproportionate cost. However it is possible to set out the number of offences created in each Home Office-sponsored Act since one May 1997. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 created two new offences. It also created nine racially-aggravated offences (amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to "racially or religiously aggravated offences"), but these are based on existing offences and do not render unlawful behaviour which would otherwise have been lawful. The Data Protection Act 1998 created four new offences. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 created 12 new offences. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 created four new offences. The Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 created one new offence. The Terrorism Act 2000 created 38 new offences. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 created four new criminal offences. The Football (Disorder) Act 2000 created two new criminal offences. The Licensing (Young Persons) Act 2000 created one new criminal offence. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 created three new criminal offences. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 created 69 new criminal offences. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created three new criminal offences. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 created two new criminal offences. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 created 15 new criminal offences. The Vehicle (Crimes) Act 2001 created 12 new criminal offences. The Private Security Industry Act 2001 created 10 new offences. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 created 19 new offences. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 created two new criminal offences. The Mobile Telephones (Re-programming) Act 2002 created five new criminal offences. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 created 19 new criminal offences. The Police Reform Act 2002 created 23 new criminal offences. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 created 28 new criminal offences. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 created, modified or re-enacted 61 criminal offences. The Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 created one new criminal offence and modified another. The Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 created 15 new criminal offences. The Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 created two new criminal offences. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 created two new offences. The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 created eight new criminal offences and modified six criminal offences. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 created three new criminal offences. The Drugs Act 2005 created two new criminal offences. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 created 26 new criminal offences

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What number of (a) refrigerators, and (b) television sets have been replaced in the House of Lords in the past two years; and what energy saving criteria are employed in the purchase of replacements.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: We have serious concerns at the failure of the Iranian authorities to respect the rights of religious minorities. The Baha'i International Community report that members of the Baha'i faith in Iran are facing increasing problems of intimidation, confiscation of property and arbitrary detention. Baha'i students have not been able to access higher education unless they deny their faith or accept that it is incorrectly recorded on official university forms.
	During the UK's presidency of the EU, we have pressed the Iranian authorities on several occasions to address the problems faced by the Baha'i community. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did so when he first met Iran's new Foreign Minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, in September. The UK and other EU member states co-sponsored a resolution on human rights in Iran that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee on 18 November. The resolution expresses concern at, among other things, the "increased discrimination against the Baha'is, including . . . the denial of access to higher education, employment, pensions and other benefits."

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union, they are initiating any European Union monitoring of the Peruvian presidential and congressional elections in April 2006; and whether they will offer assistance to Peruvian independent organisations which intend to monitor the elections.

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Government reformed the funding of tourism in 2003. VisitBritain was established as a marketing body for Great Britain with an additional remit to promote English tourism, and the English regional development agencies took on responsibility for strategic tourism development in their regions.
	The Government believe that these arrangements are working well in setting the major priorities for the funding of tourism by the public sector, which exceeded £300 million in 2004–05. However, the Government are continuing to work towards better co-ordination in funding at national, regional, and local levels. My honourable friend the Minister for creative industries and tourism announced a new strategic advisory body for tourism on 15 November. The Tourism 2012 Group will shape and advise on the industry's preparations for the London Olympic Games, and improved co-ordination in funding decisions will be one of its main priorities. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is also considering how its structures for engaging the industry and the public sector at regional and local levels may be further improved.

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they are making to the Governments of Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo about resolving the conflict in Northern Uganda involving the Lord's Resistance Army.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: The UK has called on the Government of Uganda to protect all its citizens, including those in northern Uganda. We have frequently pressed the Government to encourage all members of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), not subject to International Criminal Court (ICC) or national arrest warrants, to seek amnesty, reconciliation and reintegration into their communities.
	We have urged the Congolese Government to take robust action against any LRA members on their soil, and to co-ordinate their actions with the Ugandan armed forces. We have further reminded them of their international responsibilities, as a state party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, to facilitate the arrest and transfer to ICC jurisdiction of LRA members subject to an ICC arrest warrant.